[Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Stanza Repeaters
Carlo v. Loesch
CvL at mail.symlynX.com
Fri Mar 21 18:18:57 UTC 2008
Thanks for warning me about this flame. ;)
Peter Saint-Andre typeth:
| Please keep your moralizing and psychologizing to yourself. Or shall we
| start a list such as philosophy at xmpp.org?
Just pointing out that a technology is not free from such side effects.
And I told you I'm not insulting anyone - I'm just putting to discussion
if it could actually be a positive simplification to remove that
feature. Both for technological optimization and user-perceived transparency.
| They do? Evidence, please. I wrote XEP-0191 (Simple Communications
| Blocking) because I thought developers found privacy lists to be too
| complex, but when I really pushed the issue they said "oh no, really
| privacy lists are fine and we've all implemented that protocol, so let's
| move on already".
I had no evidence, I just read some comments of yours stating privacy
lists weren't so cool. If this is no longer the vatican's opinion, let's
go for those repeaters which carry a bit overhead, but are still a huge
improvement over XEP-0033 or no optimization at all. But don't forget
who suggested to keep some state on the receiving side in the first
| Do you have a special way to divine the thinking of the IESG? I suppose
I was there, I met the folks in 1999 who later authored IMPP.
I bought the IESG t-shirt. And I even rejected a job offer from
Redmond, because I don't believe in proprietary messaging technologies.
Call me stubborn or evangelic.
More information about the Standards